Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>For the particular attention of Glenn, Dick and George:
>
>Why not return from the realms of fantasy and look instead at some
>facts? You appear to have dug your heels in with respect to the truths I
>have to offer, and clearly are not prepared to give them a second
>thought. Let me therefore suggest a little numerical tidbit which might
>offer a way forward:
>
>There must be few who will be unacquainted with the simplest application
>of the Pythagorean theorem, viz the 3:4:5 triangle. Any triangle having
>sides in these ratios will be found to have a right-angle opposite the
>longest side. It so happens that the gematrial value of 'the earth' - as
>rendered in the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 - is 296. Multiplying this by 3, 4
>and 5, in turn, we generate the sides 888, 1184 and 1480, respectively,
>of a right-angled triangle. The features of this triangle include the
>following:
>
>(1) 888 and 1480 are the gematrial values of 'Jesus' and of 'Christ',
>respectively, from the NT Greek; the shortest and longest sides of our
>triangle taken together therefore 'spell' the Lord's Name;
>
>(2) 1184 is the smaller component of the 'friendly number' pair,
>1184/1210; in other words, the factors of 1184 (including 1 but
>excluding 1184 itsef) total 1210, and likewise, those of 1210 total
>1184; such instances are very rare numerical events - this example being
>further distinguished by the fact that it had escaped the attention of
>'friendly number' hunters until the latter years of the nineteenth
>century;
>
>(3) returning to the Lord's Name: the ratio 888:1480, ie 3:5 is, very
>appropriately, that of the sides of the mercy seat (Ex.25:17);
>
>(4) the angle between these sides in our right-angled triangle is, to
>the nearest degree, 37 degrees; 37 is a factor of all three sides;
>
>(5) the area of this triangle is 1,051,392 square units - a multiple
>of 2368, or 'Jesus Christ'.
>
>Now these are verifiable facts (and hardly the stuff of 'numerology'
>that Glenn keeps alluding to!). They are truths that in my view deserve
>recognition - indeed, deserve to be pondered. Is it really likely that
>this remarkable confluence would arise by chance? Doesn't it rather
>suggest the purposive action of a divine hand? And should we not
>therefore make it our business - as followers of truth - to investigate
>further and determine what that purpose might be?
>
>You might like to offer your views re this particular example.
I'm aghast.
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 03 2000 - 19:59:22 EST